RISHAB KUMAR SOGANI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act") is to the order dated 01.03.2008, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 43 of 2018 preferred by the Complainant. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North (in short "the District Forum") .

(2.) The facts in brief are that the Complainant, an account holder of the savings bank account of Chandni Chowk branch of State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") visited the Bank on 28.03.2016 to deposit an amount of Rs.76,000/- and was standing in the queue for that purpose, when some miscreants snatched the amount and ran away. It is averred that when the Complainant's turn had come to deposit the amount, he placed his hand in the pocket to remove the 76 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- each but the man standing behind him had already taken out the notes which were wrapped in a small white cloth and kept in the Complainant's pocket. It is averred that the incident had taken place at noon time and an FIR was registered on 28.04.2016 under Section 379/341 of IPC at Police Station Kotwali, North District Delhi. It is stated that the Complainant had taken the relevant picture from the CCTV camera in his pen drive. Despite, writing several letters to the DCP, Crime Branch North and South and also to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Joint Commissioner of Police and subsequent letter written to the Police on 18.06.2016, 23.06.2016, 24.06.2016, 25.06.2016, 28.06.2016 and 29.06.2016, the picture of the accused person were given to all the Police Stations, but neither were the culprits caught nor was the money traced. Hence the Complainant approached the District Forum stating that since the money was lost in the Banks premises, the Bank should be held liable for not providing proper security inside the Bank.

(3.) The District Forum observed that the incident occurred outside the premises of the Bank and that when any Criminal Act is alleged, the Consumer Fora does not have jurisdiction, and dismissed the Complaint.